By 

Dr. Timothy Othman 

I read with interest the paper presented by Professor Ali Mazrui at the International Conference on "Restoration of Shariah in Nigeria: Challenges and Benefits", held in London, England, on April 14, 2001 (published on www.gamji.com). For a Non-Nigerian, the presentation was somehow balanced. However there are some critical facts that were overlooked by Mr. Mazrui. Because these facts were omitted, the whole truth has not been told, and Mr. Mazrui’s presentation becomes biased. I will discuss the reasons for the economic backwardness of the North, agitation for self-determination by ethnic nationalities, sharia and assymetrical federalism and Arabinization versus Westernization.

According to Mr. Mazrui, "the rise of Sharia advocacy and Sharia implementation in Northern Nigeria occurred because the Nigerian federation is getting more decentralized, and part of the decentralization is taking the form of cultural self-determination. In Yorubaland this cultural self-determination is taking the form of Yoruba nationalism. In Igboland it is taking the form of new demands for confederation. In the Muslim North cultural self-determination is taking the form of SHARIACRACY". This statement contains some inaccuracies. First, the power of the Nigerian federation has not been decentralized in any way in the past decades, except if by decentralization Mr. Mazrui is referring to the additional states that were created, or the return to democracy from military dictatorship. Second, the Yoruba nationalism and agitation for self-determination gained momentum (probably started) during the repressive rule of General Sani Abacha. The Ibos’ agitation for Sovereign National Conference (SNC), and the South-South clamor for resource control intensified after the adoption of sharia in North. In other words, the implementation of Sharia in the North triggered the clamor for self-determination by other ethnic nationalities. This is partly because they perceived that sharia is being employed as a political tool, and partly because sharia would affect Non-Muslims’ way of life through alteration of the social and business climates. The Ibos also used the opportunity of sharia’s introduction to press their demands for SNC because they felt that despite their total integration into all parts of the country, they have not been fairly treated or fully accepted. The South-South agitation for resource control intensified mainly because of the revelation of unprecedented looting of government funds during the Abatcha era and partly because they felt their resources would be used to fund Islamic revival.

Mr. Mazrui went on to justify the introduction of sharia by using the analogy of Quebec’s French language policy. However, sharia introduction cannot be equated with the French language policy of Quebec for several reasons. First, the political settings in Canada are entirely different from that of Nigeria. Canada practices true federalism where by states control their resources and have their own police forces, subjects that are still contentious in the Nigerian federation. Secondly, Canada is a much lesser heterogeneous society compared to Nigeria that has hundreds of ethnic groups, each having separate culture, and striving to maintain a distinct identity. But supposing one can use the French language policy of Quebec to justify the introduction of sharia, the question is, is it an exemplary model that is worth emulating? I say no, because of its discriminatory and divisive nature. For example, French language activists frequently vandalize English language signs and harass businesses displaying English labels. A similar trend has started to emerge in the sharia states where by sharia enforcers would vandalize places of worship without provocation. This may be with or without the active collaboration of state government officials. Furthermore, governments are increasingly denying certificate of occupancy for religious houses. These are happening when sharia is still at its infancy, and when it is still controversial in the country.

If the principle of asymmetrical federalism has been used to justify the introduction of sharia in Nigeria, then it is contradictory for the Northern Governors to oppose SNC or resource control. Their opposition is an admittance that it is premature to apply assymetrical federalism in a nation that has not discussed the modalities for its implementation. For true assymetrical federalism to operate in Nigeria, a forum is required where the modalities for its implementation will be discussed. This is the basis for the agitation for SNC and resource control. Ironically, whereas the Northern governors have put the cart before the horse by deriving the benefits of assymetrical federalism through the introduction of sharia in their states, they have denied other states the same rights they are currently enjoying by fiercely opposing SNC and resource control. This is analogous to flogging a child, while threatening the child not to cry.

Another important factor that the cultural giant failed to discuss is the threat of sharia to local traditions and cultures of Northern minorities. These cultures and traditions predate both Islam and Christianity. However some of the Northern governors are bent on imposing the sharia on some local people who do not practice Islam, and thus threatening their ways of life. Clear examples are the Kambaris of Niger state and some Gwoza tribes of Borno State. Both tribes use local alcoholic brew for their ancestral worship and for recreation. However, both are being forced to give up these practices because they violate sharia. That means that under sharia, Non-Muslims automatically lose their rights. This is not only in conflict with the ethical, judicial and constitutional standards, but it also contradicts the strongest argument sharia proponents have always used to justify the introduction of sharia. The proponents argue that sharia is "a complete way of life" for the Muslim. It therefore follows that Muslims are in a better position than anyone else to appreciate how important other peoples’ "way of life" meant to them. Now Sani Yerima has vindicated the pessimists points of view that sharia will erode the rights and alter the "complete way of life" of Non-Muslims. He is not only proposing to impose Islamic dress code on the Non-Muslim women, he is also threatening to disrupt the economic activities of Non-Muslims by imposing mandatory daily closure of shops during afternoon Muslim prayers.

One of the imminent scenarios of sharia is that a system could emerge where radical Mullahs will take over the reign of power in the states. They could then challenge the foundation of the Nigerian state, i.e. constitution, the flag and the national anthem. This will spell doom for the continued existence of Nigeria as one indivisible country.

It may be true that the north is on the economic periphery of Nigeria. Mr Mazrui wrote "The Nigerian economy had marginalized the North as a region. The oil wealth and related industries were disproportionately located in the South. One of the triggers of the Shariacracy movement in some Northern states was Northern resentment of being the periphery of the periphery". The politics of Shariacracy were in part a protest against regional economic inequalities" . These statements implied that the South is economically more prosperous at the expense of the North. Sharia introduction is therefore a protest against the economic imbalance. If that is the reasoning of the Northern governors, then they are searching for a solution where non exists. The South has nothing to do with the North’s economic backwardness. The North harbors numerous factors within its system that makes economic prosperity impossible to achieve.

One of the most important reasons for economic backwardness of the North is the low literacy level. Literacy level in any society is intimately linked to economic development. Strong aversion towards Western education (an absolute necessity in an increasingly competitive global market) is still strong in the North. This leave a very huge fraction of the population devoid of any meaningful training in Science and Technology, and so are ill-equipped to tackle critical economic endeavors. Thus, a sizeable segment of the Northern population is neither technologically or economically prepared to be relevant in today’s competitive global market and is thus, unproductive. Another compounding factor is the practice of "purdah" which commits the most productive segment of the female population (age approximately 15 to 45) to sedentary life. Furthermore, although Mr Mazrui hailed Nigeria as having "the largest concentration of Muslims on the African continent, having more Muslims than any Arab country, including Egypt", he did not ponder on the detrimental effects of unchecked population growth on economic development. When the Islamic revolution kicked off in Iran, the spiritual leader encouraged Iranians to boost the population by having larger families. Several years down the road, Iran ended up with a large population of unemployed and bored youths who sought consolation in drugs, courtesy of Afghanistan, which flooded Iran with narcotics. Iran had to figure out how to deal with millions of these unemployed kids. In the north, polygamy guaranteed that family sizes are large. This does not allow the parents to provide proper education and training to their siblings. What Mr Mazrui should emphasize is not how large the population in the North is, but how to make it qualitative so that it can be economically beneficial to the whole country.

Faced with these serious drawbacks, the North is in an economically disadvantaged position, and no one needs to wonder why it constitute a liability rather than an asset to the economic development of Nigeria. It also means that contrary to Mr. Mazrui’s claims, the South had contributed more than their fair share towards Nigeria’s economic prosperity. Not only is oil, which supports the Nigeria’s economy a Southern resource, Southerners developed vocational skills that prepared them for productive livelihood. The Northerners preoccupied themselves with search for "easy money", and spend most of the day dozing in the shade. Predictably, in the North, Southerners dominate all the professions that required vocational training. As a matter of fact, the industriousness and hard work of the Southerners kept the ailing Nigerian economy alive. The Ibos effectively integrated in the North and stimulated commercial enterprise in all its major cities and towns. Now what sharia will achieve is to drive the economically enterprising Ibos away. Economic activities will eventually dwindle and the North will be worst off.

Because Southerners readily accepted Western Education, they are ahead in economic and educational advancement. That is why only the South could export skilled labor out of Nigeria. There are at least 3 million Nigerians living and working outside the country. Most of these are Southerners who send at least a hundred dollars a month to Nigeria. This alone is also helping to shore up the depressed Nigerian economy.

Mr. Mazrui admitted that Nigeria was ruled by successive military rulers from the North, but he failed to mention the effect of the corruptness of these rulers on the Nigerian economy in general and the Northern economy in particular. Most of the funds stolen through corrosive Northern leadership are never ploughed back into the economy, thus allowing the economy to collapse.

In effect, the introduction of sharia will have the opposite effect to what Mr. Mazrui and the Northern Governors had hoped will be a solution to the economic backwardness of the North. It will create an unpredictable climate for foreign investors as it has already done. The Governors also allocate so much time and efforts to the implementation of sharia and allow other government functions to wilt. Returning from the London conference, Sani Yerima, Governor of Zamafa State embarked on a vigorous actualization the "assymetrical federalism", by mandating that all government offices, schools and businesses close daily during payers. This will amount to a loss of 5 man-hours per week (260 hours per year) for every worker in Zamfara state. Both Zamfara and Yobe states are threatening to introduce mandatory Islamic dress code irrespective of one’s faith. The enforcement of the sharia on Non-Muslims will create a climate of fear and disillusionment leading to relocation and subsequent reduction in economic activities.

On the whole, no serious economic growth can be supported in a society embedded with these strains. The Northern states therefore risk sinking deeper into academic and economic obscurity.

It appeared that Mr. Mazrui used Westernization and Christianization interchangeably, meaning that it is incomplete to discuss Weternization without discussing Christianity. Likewise, it will be incomplete to discuss Sharia or Islam without discussing Arabinization. Although Mr. Mazrui has always criticized the adverse effects of Westernization in Africa in particular, he has never (to the best of my knowledge) discussed the injurious effects of Arabinization on the continent (This may or may not have anything to do with Christianity or Islam respectively).

Historically, the introduction of both Islam (by Arabs) and Christianity (by Europeans) in Africa shares appreciably similar characteristics. Whereas Europeans came to Africa as merchants and colonialists mainly through the West, North and South African coasts, Arabs equally came as merchants through the East coast of Africa, and as refugees fleeing religious persecution in the Middle East to North Africa. Both have settled in Africa and both have had their share of blame for injustices against indigenous Africans. Whereas the atrocities committed by the Europeans are widely known, the atrocities committed by Arabs received much less attention. For instance, Europeans were heavily involved in slave trade, so were the Arabs. Arabs traded African slaves as far back as the 7^th Century AD (before Europeans even started trans-atlantic slave trade). Africans who were exported to Mesopotamia by Arab merchants were castrated and worked in the fields as laborers. Thousands of Africans were also sold on the Indian subcontinent, in Java and China as slaves by Arab merchants. Secondly Europeans engaged many locals in battles just as Arabs spread Islam through force of arms. In Africa today, Arabs are still actively maltreating indigenous Africans in Mauritania, Sudan and Algeria. For instance, the Berbers are the original inhabitants of North Africa. When the Arabs came in the 7^th century AD, they brought the Arabic language to North Africa. Although Berbers (majority of whom are Muslims) make up about a third of the population of Algeria, their language had had been submerged by Arabic and had never been accorded equal status to Arabic. Recently, the government of Algeria enacted a law that makes Arabic the sole official language of Algeria. Thus, the Berbers were denied official recognition as a distinct minority and their cultural heritage relegated to obscurity. This triggered widespread riots in which more than 60 people died. Thus, whereas Mr. Mazrui has consistently blamed Europeans for exploiting Africa, he has continually (to the best of my knowledge) shielded the Arabs from blame. This could be because of his Arabic heritage, or the fear that Western culture will encroach into areas where Arabic culture had been firmly established.

Mr. Mazrui and some of the Northern Governors must appreciate the fact that the West progressed because they offered opportunities to everyone to reach his/her full potentials. Religious beliefs or ethnic backgrounds are not important considerations, since no one is officially discriminated against because of his/her ethnic background or religious beliefs. This attitude transformed the West into a more integrated and tolerant society. They are tolerant of other people whose cultures and ways of life are different from theirs. The West opened her doors to migrants of all faiths including Muslims who are allowed to freely practice their religion as they wished. Thus, Muslims societies need to reciprocate such gesture by allowing other faiths to co-exist peacefully with Islam, free of intimidation or harassment. However, Mr Mazrui will hear non of this as he wrote "The new globalization in Southern Nigeria was bound to sound cultural alarm bells in the North. Against encroaching globalization the Sharia is cultural resistance to Westernization. Northern Nigeria is engaged in both protest and resistance through the medium of the Sharia". My question is why is it necessary to resist Western culture? One reason may be because of the fear that Christianity will penetrate Muslim domains as Mr Mazrui wrote "In the colonial era Lord Lugard had kept Christianity at bay in the North through the shield of Indirect Rule. Post-colonial politicians in Northern states are seeking to keep globalization (Christianization, emphasis mine) at bay through the shield of the Sharia. If modernization is a higher phase of Westernization, and globalization is a higher phase of modernization, the stage is now being set for new kinds of normative responses". The other reason may be because of the fear that Western culture will "pollute" conservative, non-Western cultures. I have actually wondered Non-Westerners always think Western culture will "pollute" their cultures. Anyone who has widely traveled will confirm that most social problems like prostitution, corruption, drugs, adultery, gun violence etc afflicts all countries. Some of these social vices have been in existence for centuries. As a matter of fact, the West fares better on many social indicators compared to developing countries. For instance, whereas the West has been able to contain corruption, Nigeria, Pakistan and Indonesia for instance are on the top of the global corruption chart. So a constant campaign for resistance against Western culture by Mr. Mazrui is not only unfair, it is hypocritical, particularly, as people from the developing countries earns their livelihood in the West.

Good Christians and good Muslims are aspiring towards the same goal. To rid the society of social vices. For instance a pious Chritian lives a more chaste life than sharia prescribes. Whereas sharia forbids the consumption of alcohol, the Bible not only condemns alcohol consumption, but any substance that is detrimental to the health, including tobacco. In addition, no true Christian can divorce except if infidelity is established in the union. Perhaps square mile by square mile, Nigeria has one of the highest concentrations of mosques or churches, yet Nigeria remained the most corrupt nation on earth. What Nigeria need is not just rhetoric about religion, but true practitioners of both Christianity and Islam. They do not necessarily have to be suspicious of each other or antagonize each other. Only cooperation between true practitioners of these major faiths can save Nigeria, religious rhetoric wouldn’t.

The argument that Muslims have always had for the introduction of sharia is that sharia is a "complete way of life" for Muslims. It therefore follows that Muslims are better placed to appreciate how important the "way of life" of Non-Muslims are important to them. It is contradictory to deny others the right to live their lives the way they want. In the North, there is so much heterogeneity in terms of language, customs, traditions and religion. Christians and Animists in Northern Nigeria should be allowed to practice their faith and live their lives the way the chose to without fear of constant harassment or intimidation.

The world has become more integrated and more tolerant it is therefore important for Muslim Societies to allow other faiths to co-exist peacefully with Islam.

Dr. Timothy Othman is with the Yale University School of Medicine and writes from New Haven, Connecticut.